Strait of Hormuz: Merchant Shipping

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is an interesting question. I will talk about the way in which the Royal Navy is developing. It used to be that the provision of a mine-hunting ship was the way in which mine-hunting activity was conducted. In looking for an expression of power and symbolism, a mine-hunter still has a role to play, and we still have mine-hunting ship capability. However, as you can see with the development of RFA “Lyme Bay” and the protection that HMS “Dragon” provides for it, should that permissive environment come forward, RFA “Lyme Bay” is the future of providing the mine-hunting capability that the noble Lord rightly points to. We have a big platform upon which there are numerous uncrewed systems, weapons and so on that we can use above, on or under the water. In this case, they provide a real, modern capability and capacity, working with our friends and allies, to deal with mines and to help in respect of the mine clearance.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in two of his answers the Minister has talked about conditions being right and there being consensus, but is not part of the problem that we need to be working now with the United States in particular to persuade it to look for a way that will create those conditions? While the attacks go on between Iran and the United States, the conditions are not going to be there and the problem is not going to be resolved. What conversations are His Majesty’s Government having with the United States?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. We continue to speak to the Americans and discuss with them how we can see an operational and functioning ceasefire restored. The memorandum of understanding worked for a time and we saw an increase in the number of ships using the Strait of Hormuz. From memory, I think that, before the conflict, some 130 ships were using the strait per day; after the memorandum of understanding was signed and was seen to be operating for a number of days, between 20 and 30 ships were using it. That has reduced for obvious reasons—yesterday, there was one ship. Getting a situation in place which has the confidence of all the nations that use the Strait of Hormuz, as a functioning arrangement between Iran and the United States, is clearly in all our interests. We have certainly talked to the Americans about how we might support them in the re-establishment of that.

EU Security Action for Europe Programme

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with the point made by the noble and gallant Lord. It was best illustrated when, soon after the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, I read in a newspaper that Ukraine had had to retreat: not because it did not have the soldiers or desire to fight but because it did not have the weapons to fight with. That cannot be a situation we allow our allies or ourselves to be in in the future. The ability to keep your own forces and those of your allies supplied is absolutely crucial to any conflict. As the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, preparing for war is one sure way of preventing war.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister suggested that he might have an opportunity to talk a bit more about bilateral and other relations. When this Government took office barely two years ago, a lot of preparatory work had been done, for example between John Healey and Boris Pistorius on a British-German relationship on defence. Can the Minister confirm that the sort of work that has been going on for the last two years to strengthen bilateral defence relations will continue and that a change of Prime Minister and other personnel is not going to impede the effective work that is being done?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I can confirm that. Clearly, it is in all our interests that, alongside the collective agreements we seek, we also seek individual agreements, as the noble Baroness pointed out. She will already know of our agreement on frigate building with Norway, the recent announcement with the Netherlands on amphibious ships, the typhoon arrangement with Türkiye, the individual arrangements with Germany and France, and there are many others. The bilateral relationships that we have with other countries, and the bilateral agreements to rebuild our industries, are crucial to building the defence industrial base we need.

Defence Readiness Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has brought forward a very timely debate. If we were in any doubt of that, we need only to think about the business of the House today, where there was a Statement on the independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. One might think that that issue could be contributing, if not to hybrid warfare, to something of which politicians and ordinary members of society need to be aware.

We have heard about hybrid threats. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, reminded us of the poisonings on our soil. Other noble Lords may, like me, have received an email this morning from Cyber Security, which is the Lords’ phishing education programme. It sent me a little email saying, “We sent you the email below to try to make sure that you wouldn’t get caught out by phishing”. Again, that is not something we would necessarily think of as defence readiness, yet it is the sort of issue the whole of society needs to think about.

There was a set of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, about what we mean by the “whole of society”. I had assumed from reading the SDR, from listening to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, from other contributions today and from the Minister’s past speeches that the “whole of society” means what it says on the tin: that we need to be prepared—not just policymakers, the Ministry of Defence and people dealing with specific issues concerning security, cyber security, hard security and critical infrastructure, but every individual.

We heard today how some countries, particularly our new NATO allies Finland and Sweden, do a very good job in preparing their citizens. What lessons have His Majesty’s Government taken from our partners and allies? Circulating booklets to households and businesses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, suggested, is one thing, but will that really do the job? Will people really say, “Oh, a leaflet has come through the letterbox. I’d better read it, make a note of it, get my wind-up radio and my battery torch, and make sure I’ve stocked the cupboards and got clean water”? They could do something else. Obviously, as a Liberal Democrat, I do not want to believe this, but I understand that, when we put leaflets through letterboxes, sometimes they do not get read. Sometimes, they go directly into the recycling bin—if we are lucky. Obviously, if leaflets went out on national resilience and preparedness, they would have a measure of gravitas and weight, coming from the Government. But equally, there is a real danger that people will not necessarily read a document.

So we need to be very open to a whole range of different approaches to how we have the conversation the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, talked about. It cannot just be leaflets through doors, and a conversation in and of itself is not enough either. A conversation is useful, but we need that to be the start, not the end. It needs to be an opportunity to persuade people—wherever they are in the United Kingdom, whatever their background, whatever their work interests and whatever their personal interests and circumstances—that they need to stop and be much more aware. I understand that there are parts of the country where people still feel that they can leave their front door unlocked and nobody will walk in. Most of us do not feel like that, and we need to make people aware that there are all sorts of other aspects of their lives where they need to be aware and mindful of what may come forward.

In order not to cause an unwelcome emergency on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Whips like us to arrive many minutes before the start of the next item of business. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, arrived 15 minutes after me, but when I arrived on my Benches, I could see a look of relief from one of our Whips. I thought I had timed my arrival well, because I was thus able to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, speak in the previous debate on space. It was interesting because, as I listened to him, I thought that if I did shorthand and transcribed what he said at the end of the debate, it would have been perfectly suitable for a debate about national and defence readiness and resilience. The noble Viscount talked about businesses needing certainty, which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, also referred to. That is crucial for our defence readiness. Businesses need to know what the Government’s priorities are. They need to know when contracts are likely to be let.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, also said, there is an increasingly crowded marketplace. He was talking about space, which is one aspect of defence, but it is also true in other aspects of defence. This is the point where, like the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, I beg to part company from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because dual-use technology is hugely important. The whole-of-society approach should be about persuading individuals, and it also needs to be about working closely with businesses, partly on defence investment and R&D.

My final point is on reserves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, pointed out in the debate on Monday, the role of reserves is crucial. We need to prepare businesses to be aware that their reserves may be called up. That needs to be part of a whole-of-society planning process.

Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who, as he said in his declaration of interests, is currently chair of trustees of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, which runs the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. I am currently a trustee, having attended all parts of the scheme, starting off in 2015, when the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, and I were the only Members of the Lords who participated in the scheme. People were not quite sure what to do with Members of the House of Lords on the scheme. They did not quite know how the arrangements would work. Everything was thought through for Members of the House of Commons. So I am absolutely delighted today that we have heard from so many Members of your Lordships’ House who have participated or are participating in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. That means that we have heard a range of different voices today.

The right reverend Prelate pointed out that all that seems to have happened since the last Armed Forces Bill in 2021 is that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, have swapped places. I and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, have not moved, yet some of what I am hearing from the Opposition Benches sounds quite similar to what I was hearing in 2021, and the responses that I suspect we will hear from the Minister this evening may sound quite similar as well. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, called for us to look again at the costs for those from services families applying for indefinite leave to remain.

So there are perennial questions that some of us have been debating for several years. I hope the change of Government might allow the Minister to give some slightly more positive answers, at least on some issues, even if he will have to go back and persuade his colleagues in the Home Office to support those families—I assume we are talking primarily about the Nepalese Gurkhas who are here. We owe them a duty as well.

We are here primarily to talk about the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill. Every year, we have to renew our endorsement of having Armed Forces. At times we have been doing that in the Moses Room as a statutory instrument with four Members of your Lordships’ House present—the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and I—plus some officials. For the five-year Armed Forces Bill, it is really important that we are hearing so many voices from across your Lordships’ House engaging with issues that matter so fundamentally at this time, precisely for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, pointed out. In 2026, the position we are in is fundamentally different from when we debated the Bill five years ago.

We could have all sorts of debates about whose fault it is that the Armed Forces are not sufficiently well funded, but the point is that, in 2026, we all know that we need to invest more fully in the Armed Forces. That is a national concern, and the national conversation is beginning but does not go far enough. If every one of your Lordships who has spoken in this debate, particularly if they do not come from a services background, goes out and talks to their family and friends about what they have been doing when they have been out on the Armed Forces scheme, that would begin to raise conversations beyond the echo chamber where we normally are. As we have heard from many noble Lords today, it is vital that we have a conversation that looks to how we strengthen resilience.

The particularly welcome aspect of the Bill this year, as far as I am concerned, is the expansion of the Armed Forces covenant. I have called on His Majesty’s Government on many occasions for its extension. In the past, when the Conservatives were in government, there was very much a sense of, “Yes, yes, we’re committed to the covenant. It’s really important that health, education and other people deliver the covenant”. The response on these Benches was, “No, it is vital that the whole country understands the covenant, but particularly that His Majesty’s Government take on that responsibility”.

The expansion of the scope of the covenant is clearly welcome, yet, as we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Morse and Lord Hay of Ballyore, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, we need to look carefully at some of the aspects of how the Armed Forces covenant can and will be expanded to local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Morse, is right that, if we appear to put something on the statute book that is unaffordable, or if we give further duties to local authorities that they cannot afford to deliver or that some councils will deliver and others will not, that will create a whole set of unintended consequences.

During my time in local government—under a very different Government in very different financial times—the Lib Dems had control of Cambridge City Council during the new Labour Government. We did not really need to worry about funding. A lot of questions were very easy, but there was still a bit of a sense that it was too easy for central government to tell local authorities what to do without giving commensurate funding. Times have changed financially for local authorities, so we need to be very careful that if we are asking local authorities to do more things, we try to work out how they will be able to deliver them. But the principle of extending the covenant is hugely welcome.

One issue that many noble Lords have talked about today is the defence housing service and the moves towards spending the £9 billion on service accommodation. It is clearly an area where we need to hold the Government to account in the most appropriate way. This is not a criticism of Governments of any complexion, but it is a reality that a decade ago, when we were debating the Armed Forces Bill in 2016, I raised questions about the standard of forces accommodation. At the time I was a newbie on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, and it was pointed out to me by service personnel and their spouses that there were a couple of Facebook groups. At the time, one was “Victims of CarillionAmey”. Carillion went bankrupt and it became “Victims of Amey”. This afternoon I double-checked and there is still a Facebook page. It is now called “Victims of Pinnacle”.

When she was a Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, congratulated me on one occasion. She said, “We’ve been listening to you. The new arrangements now mean that the telephone will be answered much more quickly. People will get the responses they need”. Yet criticisms remained. The defence housing service and the defence housing strategy are very welcome, but it will be an area where close monitoring and accountability are hugely important.

The Armed Forces Bill and the annual renewal are very often about service justice, and that is an area I always hand over to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who knows far more about service justice questions than I do. I very much hope that in Committee he and my noble friend Lady Brinton will table amendments. As we have heard today, there are a range of very technical issues. It would be helpful to have a sense from the Minister of whether he will be open to some amendments of a technical nature that are needed for service justice.

There has been discussion about the gap in funding of the defence investment plan. This is the final point from these Benches; my colleagues on defence would expect me to say it. There is a proposal from the Liberal Democrats perhaps to support defence funding with defence bonds. Has the Minister had a chance to think about that as a way of enhancing the provisions? I conclude by saying that in principle we welcome the Bill, and we look forward to debating it in Committee.

Palantir: Public Service Contracts

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My understanding is that the mayor and the commissioner have now reached an arrangement with respect to the activity of Palantir within the Metropolitan Police, where there will be a 12-month period to establish a proof of concept as to whether Palantir can move forward. The mayor and the Metropolitan Police commissioner have agreed that because, as the noble Lord says, the commissioner believes it will help fight crime. It is a matter for them to resolve that, but it seems they have found a way in which both are happy to try to take it forward.

I do not want to underestimate the moral questions that Governments sometimes have to answer. The noble Lord knows the issue of education particularly well, but let us look at the issue with respect to health: 41 ICBs and 171 trusts have signed up to use the NHS federated data platform; more than 100,000 extra patients have been seen; hundreds of thousands of patients have been safely removed from the waiting list; and nearly 94,000 patients have been supported on their cancer journey. That is the sort of dilemma that Governments need to resolve to try to find the best way forward.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we understand the importance of the Armed Forces modernising, including with AI. My understanding is that Palantir received a £240 million contract without the MoD going out to tender. While there are clearly national security exemptions for genuinely exceptional cases, is the Minister concerned that this could just move towards being a way of avoiding competition rather than helping national security? Will the next contract go out to procurement?

Military in the Gulf

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a really significant point. The noble Lord will know that the First Sea Lord has talked about the hybrid Navy, the importance of artificial intelligence, and the importance of intelligence in guiding the systems of the future, including drone capability. In providing that capability, instead of necessarily having minesweepers, the idea is that we should do the sort of thing that the noble Lord is talking about. An example would be RFA “Lyme Bay”, which is moving towards the region. The autonomous systems that it has to operate above, on the sea and underwater to protect our interests is a template which we will follow. That requires intelligence and the co-operation of various nations.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I express our condolences to the families of those who tragically lost their lives this week. As always, we owe a huge debt to service personnel and their families.

The Minister has already said he has had much engagement with the ambassadors and defence attachés from the Gulf region. Is he able to say categorically to them that we have the naval capabilities to give them the reassurance they need? Or do we need to push the Treasury to move further and faster?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that those discussions with the Treasury continue. On the point she makes, of course they ask for various military capabilities. HMS “Dragon” is in the region at the moment to support any operations that may be needed. Alongside that, what they have particularly asked for, given the indiscriminate way in which Iran responded, is for anti-air defence. We have provided that in significant quantity, with jets and the capability to defend their bases. They have been very appreciative of that.

King’s Speech

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is often suggested that a week is a long time in politics, and I suspect that for the Prime Minister, it has been a very long week. It is now eight days since His Majesty the King came and gave the gracious Speech last Wednesday. We heard the Motion for an humble Address from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, which was one of the most exciting, lively and dynamic Motions for an humble Address I have heard. I am delighted that she is in her place today.

We are now moving to the very end of speeches on this year’s gracious Speech, at the end of a day that has been wide-ranging, well-informed and interesting. I hope the Minister responding will feel that he has been blessed, in that from his own Benches in particular there have been myriad calls for resilience and increased defence expenditure—surely things that any Minister in the MoD will want to hear—which will enable him to talk to the Secretary of State for Defence and urge him to press in Cabinet, to the Prime Minister, whoever he may be, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance of defence expenditure. One thing that has virtually united the House today has been the importance of defence expenditure. There are nuances in what noble Lords have said but, broadly speaking, there has been an acceptance that defence expenditure is crucial.

However, before I get into the details of defence, as I am winding from these Benches for the whole international and defence day, I want just to touch on some of the wider issues of foreign policy, the challenges, and particularly Europe, because noble Lords will have realised that from these Benches there is a very clear voice on Europe.

Among the very powerful speeches today, one that I thought was noteworthy was from the noble Lord, Lord Sterling of Plaistow. He told noble Lords that he remembers 8 May 1945 and his parents celebrating, as other people’s parents would have been doing, but in particular saying, “We are safe”, and described the importance, if you were Jewish, of being safe in this country and in Europe. We have heard many contributions today about concerns of antisemitism. If you are Jewish in this country today, you may no longer feel safe. But there is a wider concern. It is not only that if you are Jewish you may not feel safe; the message of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who has been mentioned more times than anybody else in the Chamber today, is that we are underprepared, underinsured, under attack, and not safe.

If the first duty of the state is to protect our citizens, do His Majesty’s Government believe that they are doing enough to ensure that our country is safe and that we will be able to meet our international obligations to our NATO colleagues and to defend ourselves, and to work with our NATO partners and allies to keep Europe safe? This Government, like their predecessor, put a lot of effort into supporting Ukraine, and that is absolutely right. But are we ensuring that we are doing enough to remain safe at home?

The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, all talked about the three Ds—the interplay of diplomacy, defence and development. As the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, of course I am committed to increasing defence expenditure. However, like other noble Lords I would like to believe that the Government can come forward with a plan actually to increase defence expenditure rather than simply say that it is going to happen at some future point. A commitment is vital, but that commitment to increase defence expenditure must not be at the expense of development or of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

In cutting development aid as we have been doing, we lose influence and the ability to support communities abroad—precisely the sorts of communities that most need our aid, as so many noble Lords have pointed out. My noble friend Lady Northover raised the issue of development aid. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, reminded us that the amount spent internationally on aid will be 0.24% in 2027. If we aspire to global influence, we need to be committed to aid and not simply to talking about what we might do and how we might have networks. Networks matter but the ability to deliver also matters.

As the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Hodgson, said, there are real concerns about cuts to FCDO expenditure. Diplomacy is vital. If we are not committed to diplomacy, we will find that the pressure on defence is even greater. We need to focus on embassies and high commissions and ensure that we are not reducing morale within the FCDO. Diplomacy matters but not just the very high-level diplomacy which this country has been so good at. The Minister started off with what some people have referred to as “tiara diplomacy”—His Majesty the King’s visit to the United States, and his speech to Congress, which was so well received. His first state visit to Germany was well received, as was the return match last year.

The role of the Royal Family in diplomacy is important, but we need to go beyond wheeling out our royals on high-level occasions and ensure that our diplomatic links are thorough. We need them even more since we left the European Union because we have lost many of those behind-the-scenes informal conversations. For that reason, I very much support the call made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for stronger bilateral relations. She talked about UK-Spanish relations. If I was giving a single speech, it would perhaps be on UK-German relations, but we need to be strengthening those bilateral relations and our relations with Europe. If one message came out most loudly and clearly from these Benches, it was the importance of strengthening our relations with our European partners. The partnership Bill is important, but it does not go far enough. My noble friend Lady Suttie talked about the future, particularly for her great-nephew—who is almost born but not yet with us. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford called on the Government to be bold, to take a lead, to take back the future. There was a suggestion that it is not red tape that is holding the Government back but red lines.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also talked about the great importance of Europe. Why does that matter so much? It is precisely because we have an unreliable closest partner in the United States. The Falkland Islands are perhaps held in some disdain by Donald Trump —it is not quite clear—but there are suddenly question marks over their future, which His Majesty’s Government should not tolerate. There are questions over what we should do with the Chagos Islands. That should be our decision and not subject to the vagaries of a President of the United States. There are questions around support for Ukraine: again, our closest ally is also an unreliable partner. So it is vital that we strengthen our links with our European partners, particularly over foreign and defence policy.

Finally on defence, this is one area where there is a small amount of legislation in the gracious Speech. The Armed Forces Bill is a carry-over Bill that will be coming to your Lordships’ House, where it will be most welcome, particularly as it enshrines the Armed Forces covenant, as was pointed out by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. The commitment to forces accommodation is very welcome, but, as so many noble Lords have pointed out, what is missing is the defence readiness Bill. What is missing is any sense of how His Majesty’s Government propose to have the national conversation that the SDR said was needed. It is the sort of conversation that we need to offset or ensure resilience against the hybrid threats that were mentioned by Fiona Hill, one of the authors of the SDR, and in my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond’s contribution today. If we are at war with Russia, it is not a hot war, but we are vulnerable.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Antrobus, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and Lady Hodgson, the noble Lords, Lord Forbes of Newcastle and Lord Naseby, and my noble friend Lady Harris all talked about the need for resilience. Only one talked about national service; I am not going to suggest from these Benches that we should have national service, but we certainly need a national conversation. We need to look for ways of finding resilience and we need to look at the models of our Scandinavian friends in NATO.

But we also need to be bold, to have leadership and to ensure that our defence expenditure rises not randomly but in a targeted way, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle. Increasing defence expenditure is not just about making us safer or improving our alliances; it has positive consequences at home.

We heard a rumour of another £18 billion for defence. What I would really like to hear from the Minister today is whether that is merely a rumour or whether His Majesty’s Government are actually going to forward with a plan to increase expenditure. Are we going to see the defence investment plan? It is a Thursday afternoon just before a recess; that is very often a time when a Government slip things out. Might it appear in the next few days or do we have to keep waiting?

We welcome the prospect of the Armed Forces Bill, but we would much prefer also to have legislation on a resilience Bill. We hope that the Government will keep preparing, be bold and show some leadership.

Strait of Hormuz: Mine Clearance

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know my answer with respect to the defence investment plan. As I have said, it will be published in due course. HMS “Dragon” is available in the eastern Mediterranean and, as she says, is currently undergoing some limited work—but is still available with respect to its air defence weapons.

I pay tribute to the last Government for the 13 ships being built in Scotland and their importance. With respect to what the Government are doing with the mine-hunting capabilities in the region, in the Answer I gave my noble friend Lord West, I spoke about the autonomous mine-hunting capabilities that are already deployed there. The noble Baroness will know, because she is well aware of these things, that the hybrid Navy that the First Sea Lord wants will ensure that we not only have ships but that the mine-hunting capabilities of the future will involve much more the use of drones. That was why I made the point about RFA “Lyme Bay” being made a mothership from which drones can be used to tackle a mine threat, although no decision has been made to deploy that yet. That is also a way forward. Of course, ships are important, but there are many other ways mines can be tackled as well.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said how important it was to open up the Strait of Hormuz. If the United States is threatening a second blockade of the strait, surely that is going to make the situation much worse. What conversations are His Majesty’s Government having to try to ensure that our closest ally is not actually exacerbating the problem?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We always talk to the United States and continue to do so. The noble Baroness will know from the answers that have been given that we do not support the blockade, as proposed by the United States, and we are seeking other ways to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. This is why I have talked about the summit we will co-host with the French in the next few days, and why I have talked about the nations that will be invited to PJHQ to find a way that is internationally supported and co-ordinated and has the support of all regional allies, so that at the end of hostilities, we can reopen the Strait of Hormuz in a way that is sustainable and which will deliver the result we all want. Of course, we continue to talk to the United States. I make no apology for saying that the United States, whatever the current situation, remains a crucial ally of this country and in the development, peace and security of the world as we go forward.

Middle East: Defence

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as is so frequently the case on defence matters, I stand as the second opposition spokesperson to raise questions for the Minister, but I find myself very much in agreement with the Opposition Front Bench. Having heard statements from the other place, I had thought that today might be somewhat different and that there might be some differences of opinion between us, but the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised many questions that need to be answered. This is not a question of the rights or wrongs of action. We are in a situation that we may not have chosen to be in, but we are there now and we need to work out what His Majesty’s Government are able and planning to do—without giving away any operational secrets, obviously. We need at least to be thinking about the assets that we have available and a little bit more about how we interact with our allies.

I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, with one exception: I put on the record the thanks of the Liberal Democrats to His Majesty’s Armed Forces for, as always, stepping up and going beyond the call of duty. That is essential and their role is so crucial.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, the UK’s response to defend our assets, including the sovereign base in Cyprus, seemed glacially slow. If the Government’s view is that all action should be defensive then we on these Benches would support that and we would have been less sure about engaging in offensive action in the initial mission, but we are now in a situation where there will likely be more attacks against the United Kingdom because of the current situation in the Middle East. We therefore need to understand the extent to which His Majesty’s Government and the MoD are able to up our presence in the region. Are HMS “Dragon” and Royal Fleet Auxiliary “Lyme Bay” the only naval vessels that we are able to send? Are we planning other movements? Are we doing everything possible?

There is a question that remains somewhat elusive. The Statement given in the other place talked about defensive action and ensuring legality—that the United Kingdom would act only where there is a clear legal base. However, as my honourable friend in the other place, Richard Foord, asked, how do His Majesty’s Government distinguish between offensive and defensive action in the current circumstances? If we have military embedded with the United States, does that not raise questions about how we deliver what we say we are doing?

Finally, although the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the defence industrial strategy, she did not make the following plea, which somebody needs to make: when are we going to increase defence expenditure? Talking about the end of this Parliament or the next one is not good enough. This is a regional war that is becoming a global war, and we cannot wait five years. Iran certainly will not.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their important tributes to our Armed Forces. There is no division between any of us in our admiration for our Armed Forces, their families, the communities, and all those who work in our defence industry. I join with both noble Baronesses on that. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, did—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, shares this sentiment— I offer our condolences to the American armed forces personnel who have lost their lives and to the others who have been wounded. I am sure that we all share that sentiment.

I thought the noble Baroness might ask a question about readiness, so I was interested to read the Defence Select Committee’s statement from the other place. Governments cannot always be guaranteed that Select Committees will put forward things that are helpful or indeed true—not that they are not true, but you know what I mean—so let me quote from the Defence Select Committee’s statement of 10 March 2026 on developments in the Middle East:

“Members of the cross-party Defence Committee met this morning with senior civilian and military officials from the Ministry of Defence, for a secret briefing on operations in Iran and the wider region. Although we cannot comment on the substance of that discussion, those Members present were left satisfied that the UK’s decision making and preparedness measures in place ahead of the recent military activity were grounded in a coherent logic”.


I just share that the Select Committee has come to that conclusion.

The noble Baroness quite rightly asked, and I do not dispute the challenge, what our preparedness has been. Since January, we have pre-positioned Typhoon jets and F35s, and counter-drone teams, radar and various other air defence measures were put in place because of the situation that we were concerned about. As the situation has developed, four more Typhoons have been sent, along with more F35s, refuelling Voyager aircraft, A400M, 400 more personnel to Akrotiri in Cyprus, three Wildcat helicopters, one Merlin helicopter, more radar and more air defence, and, as we know, HMS “Dragon” is on the way. The UK Government took that as a sovereign decision. There was no immediate request from the Middle East but we sent that as soon as we were able.

The noble Baroness made a very important point about the Serco contract. It is not true that people were restricted to working from only nine to five at Portsmouth to get the Type 45 destroyer ready. They worked virtually round the clock and they deserve a lot of praise. In the face of a national emergency, the workers and personnel there put in ammunition, refuelled and did all the various things that they needed to do. The crew were recalled and, in six days rather than a few weeks, that ship was ready. As Members of your Lordships’ House know, it is on its way.

The noble Baroness asked about planning. She will know from her own experience that planning obviously takes place. There are lots of considerations about what capabilities are available and may be made available to defend our interests. She asked specifically about offensive and defensive actions. We have been very clear that the legal basis for our action is the collective self-defence of the region and the defence of our Armed Forces personnel and people who are out there. She and others may be interested in the numbers. The latest figure I have is that 55,000 people have been brought back from the region, of some 173,000 people who have registered. Action is being taken on that.

As the noble Baroness knows, we have allowed the use of our bases at Fairford and Diego Garcia to take action which promotes the self-defence of our partners and ourselves. Specifically, those allowances and permissions relate to stockpiles and launch sites. As both noble Baronesses will know, if we can degrade the ability to launch missiles and degrade the stockpiles in the first place, that contributes to the self-defence of the region.

The noble Baroness asked about working with our allies. Only today, I met the Middle East ambassadors. I met last week with all of them, to tell them what we were doing and ask what more they would like us to do to support them—we want to work with them, and not do something to them. We have to have alliances and friendships with these people. They talk to us and they see the various actions that have been taking place. As the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, will know, you cannot have F35s, Typhoons and Voyagers and other air defence flying around without the co-operation of the various states to allow you the space to do it. Sometimes, that requires careful negotiation and consideration, so we work very closely with them to do that. I reassure both noble Baronesses that we continue to do so. At the end of our meeting, I suggested regular meetings. We met last week, we met today and we will have a regular meeting with them to ensure that we continue to work in the way that they would want.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the defence investment plan, though I will come to the industrial strategy as well. I can say no more than I have said in the past. We will publish that when it is ready to be published. On the industrial strategy and the particular point she made about the Type 26 and Type 31 being built in Scotland, she will welcome the 13 ships that are being built. To be fair, some of that was started under the previous Government, and she will have signed off some of it. All I am saying is that we have carried on with that shipbuilding programme and there will be 13 ships. It is our intention to deliver those 13 ships as quickly as we can, because they will provide us with some of the capability that we need.

The issue is how we deal with the current situation. That is why the noble Baroness was right to ask about the planning and consideration that is going on as to how we meet our responsibilities at the present time while we wait for some of the other capabilities that we want to be built and delivered.

The noble Baroness asked about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, RFA “Lyme Bay”. That is being readied for deployment, should that be decided. We are not in the situation that the noble Baroness suggests of, “Oh, my goodness, we should have an auxiliary ship available”, to take people away, for evacuation or for the delivery of supplies. RFA “Lyme Bay” is in Gibraltar and is being readied to be deployed should it be needed. That will be a further asset for us to use. There is a considerable number of things going on. There are always challenges and difficulties in these situations, and deployments are sometimes not easy. We are working as fast as we can to deliver the things that we are being asked for.

I have mentioned the Middle East and Akrotiri. We have had many discussions about why we do not deploy an aircraft carrier. We have an aircraft carrier, Akrotiri, which is our sovereign base that operates there. We have deployed numerous additional air defences and jets for the defence of our allies in the region and our personnel in the region. Noble Lords will have seen a few days ago the Defence Secretary going to Cyprus to thank and reassure personnel, and to work with and reassure the Government in Cyprus.

A whole range of different actions is taking place. At the end of the day, we will do all we can to reassure our allies, work with them and defend the region, to ensure that we have regional stability and, alongside that, that we protect British citizens, our Armed Forces and our interests there. We are working as hard as we possibly can to do that. I am very proud of much of what is being done, notwithstanding some of the challenges that we face and will no doubt face in the future.

New Medium Helicopter Contract

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are certainly making those points—with respect not only to the importance of the main contract but to the impact on the supply chain that is dependent on these contracts—to the Treasury, not just on the important Leonardo discussions but on the many other contracts the Government are signing with British industry.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, is it not precisely that this contract is not being let? As my noble friend said, the conversations need to start now. If Leonardo is the only company in the running, why are the Government not having those conversations right now?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are having conversations with Leonardo; we have been talking to it for a considerable period. Those discussions go on. All I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and to the noble Baroness is that the final decision with respect to Leonardo and the new medium helicopter will be made as part of the defence investment plan. She will have to wait for the outcome of that for final decisions to be announced.